IBM 610 workstation computer 3418

OK. But this scheduling was site specific, was it not? No two site, probably no two systems, had exactly the same schedules. Thus the software was tweaked for each installation based on the the experience of the human in charge of the system. I don't see any way for this scheduling to evolve such that a piece of hardware can be designed to provide the functionality for all installations.

Right. The biz did a similar thing when disks were emoticon tries to think of a description primitive. What I don't understand is why memory development has lagged so far behind. Yea, yea. People spout "faster" numbers at me but nobody can spout a number that includes the full system because it's impossible. So controls need to be made available to the human who can then tweak and, based on experiment, judge the best settings for that particular system. Load balancing in the olden days, included discrimination of groups of users (kiddies got on System X and profs got on System Y). Profs might be more compute-intensive so their settings and imposed limitation will be vastly different than the limitations for the kiddies who are only learning how to use the gear.

Yes. A similar thing was also done for swapping choices. You don't choose to swap the high segment that is used every minute of wallclock time but you do choose to swap out the high segment that is called every 10 minutes.

I would think that buffered mode I-O grew out this.

Is this 3 months' runtime or 3 months' wallclock time? I've been told stories in the recent past about 3 months of runtime.

Yes, and the "they" in this case was the human.

And this thread's discussions has guys who are implicitly buttuming that that kind of "scheduling" can be done by the hardware without any software having to know about it. That's what is making me jump up and down in excited protest :-).

BAH